Water Rights Mitigation: Who Benefits?

Transcription

1 Water Rights Mitigation: Who Benefits? Steve Boessow Water Rights Biologist April, 2017 Habitat Program, Science Division, Water Team: Dr. Kiza Gates, Jonathan Kohr, Steve Boessow, Robert Granger, Cole Provence

2 I Thought Ecology Issued Water Rights? RCW RCW Review of permit applications to divert or store water Water flow policy. It is the policy of this state that a flow of water sufficient to support game fish and food fish populations be maintained at all times in the streams of this state. The director of ecology shall give the director notice of each application for a permit to divert or store water. The director has thirty days after receiving the notice to state his or her objections to the application. The permit shall not be issued until the thirty-day period has elapsed. The director of ecology may refuse to issue a permit if, in the opinion of the director of ecology, issuing the permit might result in lowering the flow of water in a stream below the flow necessary to adequately support food fish and game fish populations in the stream. The provisions of this section shall in no way affect existing water rights.

3 WDFW Represents Fish & Aquatic Habitat

4 Fish & Aquatic Habitat Are Valuable Resources

5 What Is WDFW s Role? Advisory Recommend Approval- Does Not Oppose Recommend Denial Recommend Conditions or Caution

6 What Are We Mitigating For? Loss of Flow Change in Timing of Flow Landscape Disruption Human Density Growth!

7 Loss of Flow

8 Changes in Timing of Flow

9 Landscape Disruption

10 Growth

11

12 What Works? Replacement Water in Time & Place Restoration and Protection of Critical Habitat

13 Restoration Riparian Planting Large Woody Debris Meanders Flow Flow

14 What Might Work? Flow Augmentation Pump & Dump or Robbing Peter to Pay Paul Reclaimed Water

15

16

17 What Doesn t Work? Transferring Water Rights in Open Basins or Junior to Instream Flows Abandoning Questionable Water Rights Transferring Water Rights Without Property Restrictions Temporary Mitigation Measures

18 It s More Than Just Stream Flow Mitigation that Replaces Water May Not Address Other Impacts New Projects Require New Services (road crossings, storm water) Increasing Human Density May Disconnect the Flood Plain and High Flow Channels Protection of Private Property Often Trumps Fish Concerns Reclaimed Water May Be a Wise Use of Water, but May Also Promote Growth

19 More Road Crossings

20 Disconnected Flood Plain

21 Flood Protection

22 Reclaimed Water Frees up Potable Water for Growth

23 Mitigation Examples Keystone Fruit Company Initial Request For Upstream Moves Denied Moving Non-Interruptible Water Rights Initial Proposed Mitigation Not Substantial No Binding Projects or Timelines Final Attempt at Mitigation Accepted, Project Died

24 Mitigation Examples Buckhorn Mountain/Kinross Gold Exchanged Over-Mitigation of Some Streams for Modelled Depletion of Others Mitigation Included In-Kind and Out-of-Kind Projects Mitigation to Continue Decades After Mining Has Ceased Non-Governmental Partners Act as Watchdogs and Project Proponents, Relieving Agencies of Some of the Work

25 Mitigation Examples Kennewick General Hospital Cash in Lieu of Mitigation KGH to Pay Annual Fee Over 40 Years to Fund 13 Projects Mostly Out-of-Kind, Out-of-Place Mitigation Requires Long-Term Commitment From Agencies Appealed- Settlement Favorable to WDFW and Environment

26 Mitigation Examples Lacey/Olympia/Yelm Exchanged Over-Mitigation of Some Streams for Modelled Depletion of Others Mitigation Included In-Kind and Out-of-Kind Projects Three Cities, Three State Agencies, & Two Tribes Agreed on Wide Ranging Mitigation Package for Municipal Water Yelm Water Right Appealed and Lost at State Supreme Court

27

28

29 Contact Steve Boessow, Water Rights Biologist Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (360) Habitat Program, Science Division, Water Team: Dr. Kiza Gates, Jonathan Kohr. Steve Boessow, Robert Granger, Cole Provence